R v Nehme (No 2)

The defendants, Mr. Nehme and his son, were on trial for serious criminal offences including drug trafficking. The trial was ongoing when a juror allegedly conducted an internet search for information relating to the case. The Crown sought a discharge of the jury, claiming that the juror's conduct had breached the impartiality of the jury. The defendants opposed the discharge and argued that the alleged conduct did not prejudice the trial or the fairness of the proceedings. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Parker.

The central legal issue for the court was whether the alleged conduct of the juror was such that a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the jury might not discharge its duties in accordance with the law. The court considered whether the alleged conduct of the juror had breached the impartiality of the jury and whether the trial judge had acted within their discretion in discharging the jury. The court also considered the impact of the alleged conduct on the fairness of the trial and the integrity of the judicial process.

The court found that the alleged conduct of the juror did breach the impartiality of the jury, as the juror had conducted an internet search for information relating to the case. The court held that a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the jury might not discharge its duties in accordance with the law if the juror had conducted an internet search for information relating to the case. The court found that the trial judge had acted within their discretion in discharging the jury and that the discharge was appropriate in the circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of the impartiality of the jury and the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

The court discharged the jury and ordered a new trial. The defendants were not found guilty of any offence and were acquitted. The court held that the alleged conduct of the juror had breached the impartiality of the jury and that the discharge was necessary to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. The court emphasised the importance of the impartiality of the jury and the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.